首页 > 美国 > 中国在基础设施建设上的花费比美国和欧洲加起来还多 [美国网评]

中国在基础设施建设上的花费比美国和欧洲加起来还多 [美国网评]

五毛网 美国 2017年09月11日 来源:龙腾网

reddit网友:美国和欧洲(欧盟的大部分)都是发达国家。如果美国和欧洲的发展速度和发展中国家一样,那倒是奇怪了。关键词:发达VS发展中。更不用说中国有更多的人口。而欧洲和北美的建造都比中国的质量更高。  

                                      
China Spends More on Infrastructure Than the U.S. and Europe Combined

中国在基础设施建设上的花费比美国和欧洲加起来还多
 
 

【以下是评论部份】
jjmc123a
Population of US + Population of Western Eurpope < Population of China (actually less than half)- So it's not that surprising.

美国的人口+西欧的人口<中国的人口(事实上还不到中国的一半)——所以这并不奇怪。

oblio-
It's not so much population as catching up, I think. The US and EU don't need as much new infrastructure as China does, since China was lacking in this regard.
Maintenance is expensive, but it's not as expensive as the initial investment (per year).

我认为与其说是人口过剩,不如说是中国在追赶。因为中国在这方面很缺乏,所以美国和欧盟并不需要像中国那样做。
维修费用很高,但没有最初投资的时候那么昂贵(每年)。

SurfingDuude
Exactly. The US and especially Europe have been building their infrastructure for the last two centuries.
Hell, some Roman roads are still in use.

没错。在过去的两个世纪里,美国,特别是欧洲一直在建造他们的基础设施。
你可能不信,一些罗马时代的道路还在使用。

[deleted]
Not to mention the West uses significantly higher quality materials than China. The West, especially in places like California and Florida with areas prone to severe natural disasters have much stricter safety codes than China.
Quantity ≠ Quality

更别说西方采用的材料比中国的更高了。西方,尤其是在像加利福尼亚和佛罗里达州这些地方都会遭受严重的自然灾害,有比中国更为严格的安全标准。
数量≠质量

[deleted]
Last time I checked the US and Europe (most of EU) are Developed Advanced nations.
It'd be really odd if US and Europe were developing at the same rate as a Developing nation. Key words being Developed vs Developing.
Not to mention China has a much larger population.the West both in North America and Europe have substantially higher quality buildings than China.

美国和欧洲(欧盟的大部分)都是发达国家。如果美国和欧洲的发展速度和发展中国家一样,那倒是奇怪了。关键词:发达VS发展中。
更不用说中国有更多的人口。而欧洲和北美的建造都比中国的质量更高。

3058248
There is some truth to this (they need more), but currently the US is severely under funding its infrastructure despite having potentially more economic resources available than China. I don't know anything about Europe.
It would be interesting to know more about this in terms of purchasing power.

你说的有点道理(他们的需求更大),尽管美国比中国拥有更多潜在的经济资源,但目前却严重缺乏基础设施的资金。对于欧洲我知道的不多。

[deleted]
If we too had to still pave 65% of our roads, we would spend more too.
We spent the money, just back in the 20th century.
This should not be construed as an argument against better funding to maintain our infrastructure, however.

如果我们还要铺设65%的道路,我们也会花更多的钱。
我们的钱在20世纪就花了。
然而,这不应被视为反对用更多的资金来维持我们的基础设施的论点。

Jaxdialation
They don't spend the money on social, pension or interest expenses in the way the US and EU do. The Party decides where to spend the money, and they vote with different priorities than your average US or EU voter.

他们没有像欧洲和美国一样把钱花在养老金或利息支出等社会福利上。政党决定在哪里花钱,他们投票的侧重点不同于一般的美国或欧盟选民。

Franzish
This is why their economy expands like crazy. Now lately, the construction companies have gotten in such kahoots with the government that it's become borderline inefficient (like in Russia you will see quota requirements and people using a railroad nail to hang up a picture), but nevertheless, it expands the economy a hell of a lot more than military spending.... even with inefficiency.... per example of an efficient infrastructure project.... the Highway Act of 1956, although done out of militaristic paranoia, is the MAIN reason why the US has the largest economy in the world.

这就是为什么他们的经济发展会像疯了一样。但是最近,建筑公司和政府同流合污,使得他们的边界效率变得低下(和在俄罗斯一样,你会看到定额要求和用铁路钉子挂画的人),但尽管如此,他们在经济上的扩张还是远高于军事开支......即使效率不高......美国一个高效的基础设施项目的例子是1956年的高速公路法案,虽然它是由军国主义的偏执狂做出的,但这是为什么美国是世界上最大的经济体的主要原因。

[deleted]
Both the U.S. and the EU should spend more on infrastructure investment. Virtually every economist who has looked on this issue agrees with that.
However, choosing China as a comparison is a terrible mistake. The Chinese have massive overinvestment problems and massive overcapacity problems.
It's why they are exporting deflation across the world, especially PPI.
I wish we could have more sensible news coverage, but I guess media logic demands that we need to threaten people with big bad Red China, so they'll get scared into action or somehow or another.

美国和欧盟都应该在基础设施投资上多花些钱。几乎每个关注过这个问题的经济学家都同意这一点。
然而,选择中国作为比较是一个可怕的错误。中国有大量的过度投资和产能过剩问题。这就是为什么他们在全球出口通货紧缩,尤其是PPI。
我希望我们的新闻报道能够更明智一点,但我猜媒体的逻辑是“我们需要一个红色的大坏蛋去威胁人民”,所以他们是不会这么干的。

GetHisWallet
Just a note though, they also have more people than US and all of Europe combined. In fact, I do believe that if you took the total number population of US and Europe and subtracted that total from China's population, they'd still be the 3rd highest population in the world.
You'd think that comes with a lot of infrastructure requirements、

但是值得注意的是,他们的人数也比美国和欧洲的总和还要多。事实上我确信,如果你用中国的总人口减去欧洲和美国的人口数,剩下了的人口还会是世界第三大人口国。
你可以想象一下他们对基础设施的需求有多大。

L8Show
My friend was an architect over there (Shanghai). He said that they do good designs, but the builders almost always take short cuts and liberties with materials and tolerances. That's why a lot of it looks nice initially, but does not hold up well in the long run.

我的朋友是上海的一个建筑师。他说他们的设计很好,但他们施工的标准并不严格还偷工减料。这就是为什么它最初看起来很不错,但长期来看不太好。

                     

爷点一下来个评论

发表评论